On 25-08-22, 08:04, Serge Semin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:12:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 24-08-22, 17:07, Serge Semin wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:15:26PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:53:08PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > > I've tested this series on Qualcomm SM8450 SoC based dev board. So, > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > Not sure what is the merging strategy for this one but this series should get > > > > merged into a single tree. Since the PCI patch is touching the designware > > > > driver, merging the series into dmaengine tree might result in conflict later. > > > > > > Right, the series > > > [PATCH v5 00/20] PCI: dwc: Add generic resources and Baikal-T1 support > > > is supposed to be merged in first. Then this one will get to be > > > applied with no conflicts. That's what I imply in the head of the > > > cover-letter. > > > > > I dont see a dependency of dma patches with PCIe patches? I guess they > > could go thru the respective trees now..? > > There is a backward dependency: the PCIe patch in this series depends > on the eDMA patches and the patches in the patchset #3. So should you What is the dependency...? Looking at the patches there does not seem to be one... > merge the eDMA patches via your tree, the later patch in this series > and the patchset #3 would have needed to be applied in there too. So > the patches can't be split up between different branches. Seeing all > the changes (including the DW eDMA part) concern the PCIe device (DW > eDMA is a part of either DW PCIe End-point or Root Port) and we > already agreed to merge all the changes via the PCIe tree, I would > stick to the previous settled agreement. > > -Sergey > > > > > -- > > ~Vinod -- ~Vinod
